The scale of violent crime white people are being subject to in countries such as Sweden resembles warfare. Not only does the state not protect people against this racist violence, it actively sides with the attackers. Which means that the social contract is now dead and buried in most Western countries. The state is either expensive and irrelevant or it is an outright enemy.

The numbers in Sweden, and no doubt elsewhere, are worse than we are told. They are being heavily manipulated by the authorities and the media, who claim that the massive increase in rapes is caused by:

A.

The warm weather/global warming,

B.

Alcohol,

C.

Internet dating sites, and

D.

A technical increase due to the fact that women suddenly report rape more frequently than before.

These are the explanations that are mentioned. There is no other.

Suggesting that it has something to do with mass immigration of alien cultures is quite literally banned by law. A Swedish man was arrested, brought in front of the local court and sentenced for “hate speech” for carrying a sign during a demonstration suggesting that rape was linked to immigration.

Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be “good for the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase. Nobody among the Leftist media elites says it should stop, they say it should continue indefinitely, and there are more and more hysterical witch-hunts against “racism” by the white indigenous people. It’s state-sponsored ethnic cleansing of the native population, cheered by our own media and intellectuals, in short: The greatest betrayal in history.

This is part of a massive and prolonged campaign of psychological warfare against whites in general that has been going on for several generations now, to strip whites of any sense of pride or self-respect. The current Swedish “conservative” prime minister has stated in public that his county’s traditional culture was merely barbarism, and that anything good was imported from abroad. While Swedish girls get gang raped by Muslim immigrants who are met with “respect for their diverse culture,” Swedish boys are being systematically indoctrinated with radical Feminism, in the most extreme cases being forced to wear female clothes and take female names by kindergarten teachers.

On the International Women’s Day, March 8 2008, the columnist Marte Michelet in the left-wing pro-Multicultural Norwegian newspaper Dagbladet attacked “brown” feminists. And no, by that she did not mean feminists with a dark skin, but those championing “Fascist,” racist and Islamophobic forces. She is the daughter of the Communist writer Jon Michelet and was until 1998 the leader of the Red Youth, the country’s “revolutionary youth league.”

Many Marxist feminists, who have for generations worked to break down Christianity and the nuclear family in the West, now passionately embrace Islam, the most repressive religion on earth. Marxists do not care about “women’s liberty.” They do not care about anybody’s liberty. They support anything that can destabilize the West. The fact that a newspaper that has been at the forefront of radical Feminism for generations now suddenly warns against “Islamophobia” and “prejudice” against the world’s most anti-female religion is highly revealing.

Attacks on Western history in order to instill shame into Western youths, a shame that militates against their thinking that their civilization is worth defending, are very common, especially targeting female students. Here is a quote from the book Religion of Peace?: Why Christianity Is and Islam Isn’t by Robert Spencer:- - - - - - - - -

A white American student, ‘Rachel,’ unwittingly summed up this attitude when she told American Indian professor Dr. David Yeagley in 2001: ‘Look, Dr. Yeagley, I don’t see anything about my culture to be proud of. It’s all nothing. My race is just nothing…. Look at your culture. Look at American Indian tradition. Now I think that’s really great. You have something to be proud of. My culture is nothing.’ Yeagley mused: ‘The Cheyenne people have a saying: A nation is never conquered until the hearts of its women are on the ground….When Rachel denounced her people, she did it with the serene self-confidence of a High Priestess reciting a liturgy. She said it without fear of criticism or censure. And she received none. The other students listened in silence, their eyes moving timidly back and forth between me and Rachel, as if unsure which of us constituted a higher authority….Who had conquered Rachel’s people? What had led her to disrespect them? Why did she behave like a woman of a defeated tribe?’

I have engaged in endless debates with people who see no relationship between traditional economic Marxism, as promoted by Karl Marx himself, and today’s “cultural Marxism.” But they miss the point. The most important mutation that happened with the various strains of Marxism during the twentieth century was that they understood that the traditional doctrine that a Socialist society was “inevitable” was incorrect. Their revolutions didn’t happen, in the West at least. But this didn’t mean that they gave up their end goals, which have largely remained the same.

They just changed the strategy needed in order to achieve these main goals, and focused on breaking down Western culture in every way, until there was no resistance left to implement their totalitarian society. That’s what has been going on for decades now, where traditional attitudes to marriage etc. have gradually become banned by law. Turning Western women, especially white women, into weapons of mass destruction against their own civilization has been a key component of this strategy, and unfortunately a rather successful one.

Also, I don’t buy this “blaming Western men” stuff. I’m tired of it. If we are guilty of anything, it is of being too kind too Western women, and letting them get away with their nonsense too often.

If women want to be taken seriously, they should take responsibility for their own actions. Women cannot attack men for decades and blame them for being male chauvinist pigs, generally evil, stupid and weak and then expect men to come rushing to their defense to clean up the problems women themselves voted to create.

There are still a few sensible self-designated feminists left in the West, but they clearly constitute a minority. I’ve been told by radical feminists that rape is a weapon used by men — that is, men in general — to keep women down. This is also the line Swedish feminists usually take regarding rapes: It’s about the “patriarchy,” not about mass immigration. Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.

As one of Marilyn French’s characters said, “All men are rapists, and that’s all they are.” In Norway in 2008, we had a case where a native teenage girl had been gang raped by Muslim immigrants, and the four female judges voted in favor of giving the rapists a “discount” on the minor compensations they were sentenced to pay to the victim. The one dissenting judge was the one male. As the female blogger Nina commented, this and other cases indicate that we need fewer female judges, not more.

Women are simply too soft and emotional to be performing these kinds of tasks. The effect of radical Feminism is to treat all men as criminals, except those who really are criminals, who should receive soft treatment. All men are rapists, except those who actually are. They are victims of “society.” Despite the fact that Muslim immigration has triggered an unprecedented wave of anti-female violence, women still vote disproportionately for pro-immigration parties, and yell “racism” at men who suggest it’s not a good idea.

Women cannot be cruel to decent men and kind to evil men and expect that this has no consequences in the long run. Why should Western men worry about women who show us nothing but hostility? Maybe we’ll just be patriarchal simpletons, drink beer, fart and watch football on TV?

What we are dealing with in the Western world is demographic warfare closely aligned with psychological warfare, aimed at breaking down our self-confidence and self-awareness to the point where our technological superiority is rendered useless because we are ashamed of ourselves or incapable of articulating what we should fight for. Sun Tzu in The Art of War said that wars are won in the temples before they are fought. The mass media are the temples of our time, which means that we are currently losing badly.

Robert D. Kaplan says that he “re-read both The Art of War by the 6th-century BCE Chinese court minister Sun-Tzu and On War by the early 19th-century Prussian General Carl von Clausewitz. What struck me straight away, thanks to my recent travels-in-arms, was not what either author said, but what both assumed. Both Sun-Tzu and Clausewitz believe — in their states, their sovereigns, their homelands. Because they believe, they are willing to fight. This is so clear that they never need to state it, and they never do… Both oppose militarism, but accept the reality of war, and from that acceptance reason that any policy lacking martial vigor — any policy that fails to communicate a warrior spirit — only makes war more likely.”

According to Clausewitz, “In affairs so dangerous as war, false ideas proceeding from kindness of heart are precisely the worst…The fact that slaughter is a horrifying spectacle must make us take war more seriously, but not provide an excuse for gradually blunting our swords in the name of humanity. Sooner or later someone will come along with a sharp sword and hack off our arms.”

As a final note on this whole sorry state of affairs — the Swedish parliament passed a law yesterday which orders comprehensive electronic surveillance of all citizens:

Swedish lawmakers voted late on Wednesday in favour of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security.

This law will make Sweden more totalitarian than even the former Communist dictatorship of East Germany.

70
comments:

Thank you for posting. The surveillance law which was passed today is openly totalitarian, and once again reaffirms Sweden's position as perhaps the most totalitarian country in the Western world. People are being raped and mugged everywhere. What does the state do about the criminals? Nothing. It increases surveillance of its law-abiding citizens. Sweden now exists only as a warning to other countries.

Fjordman, thanks for this disturbing yet informative post. The madness going on in Sweden is bad enough, it's even worst when you consider this is the future multiculturalism has in store for the West. Europe is well on it's way there and in my country, the US, people are working to bring this multiculturalist hell to our shores. In fact, it's already here and growing.

The worst of course is how these brain washers have succeded throughout Europe and the West in destroying recognition of Western culture's numerous acomplishments. People who have no pride in their nations and cultures will not defend them, indeed they will probably actively assist in their destruction.

Ypp: Bravo, I think you are on the right track. The secret to understanding human actions is to understand the psyche, and therefore to understand the unconscious.

Maria-Lousie von Franz in 'The Cat.':

"...One should tell that to anybody who joins feminist movements, that when the feminine is liberated... it unites in peace and love with the masculine... In other words, the great hostility between the feminine and masculine principles is overcome."

Feminism in the twentieth century did not liberate the feminine, it went of track toward the will to power. It replaced the outer hostility in society by inner hostility within the feminine.

This inner hostility is a complex that is always looking for a outer target to feed its existence. If there were no rapists they would be created. One implication of this is that it will unconsciously support policies that promote the needed target.

PI: That's one of the reasons why I increasingly write about historical subjects that have only marginally to do with Islam, or not at all. We need to reconnect with our cultural heritage and legacy, Greek, Roman, Christian, Norse, Germanic, Slavic, Celtic, science, food, the arts etc. Even when I was reading about chocolate to escape from political correctness, I found that the author, Michael D. Coe, thought that the Aztecs were better than the Europeans. Yes, those Aztecs, who ripped out people's hearts, ate their organs with tomatoes and drank their blood mixed with chocolate. They had better health care, while European medicine was "pathetic."

If you read 1491: New Revelations of the Americas Before Columbus by Charles C. Mann, he repeatedly compares Aztec philosophical sophistication to that of ancient Greece, of Socrates and Aristotle, and claims that it was at least as good. He does admit that the human sacrifice by the Aztecs/Mexica, or the Triple Alliance as the Aztec Empire was known, is a “charged subject,” but claims it was not fundamentally different from public executions of criminals in Europe:

"Arithmetic suggests that if England had been the size of the Triple Alliance, it would have executed, on average, about 7,500 people per year, roughly twice the number Cortés estimated for the empire. France and Spain were still more bloodthirsty than England, according to Braudel. In their penchant for ceremonial public slaughter, the Alliance and Europe were more alike than either side grasped. In both places the public death was accompanied by the reading of ritual scripts. And in both the goal was to create a cathartic paroxysm of loyaly to the government – in the Mexica case, by recalling the spiritual justification for the empire; in the European case, to reassert the sovereign’s divine power after it had been injured by a criminal act. Most important, neither society should be judged – or in the event judged each other – entirely by its brutality. Who today would want to live in the Greece of Plato and Socrates, with its slavery, constant warfare, institutionalized pederasty, and relentless culling of surplus population? Yet Athens had a coruscating tradition of rhetoric, lyric drama, and philosophy. So did Tenochtitlan and the other cities in the Triple Alliance."

He then concludes that: "Cut short by Cortés, Mexica philosophy did not have the chance to reach as far as Greek or Chinese philosophy. But surviving testimony intimates that it was well on its way."

So, the Aztecs were a sophisticated bunch of natural philosophers who were great lovers of food and had good health care. They were presumably at the brink of inventing the microchip and laser eye surgery when the Europeans showed up and invented racism and global warming.

Swedish men are just as bad as the Taliban, as one prominent feminist famously said.

So, how does bulk importation of Talibal-style Neanderthal Muslim rapists represent a solution to this problem? One must carefully parse whether the central issue is rape or simple hatred of everything White and Male.

The notion that sane women would place their blanket hatred of White Males before vociferous condemnation of rape, especially gang rape at the hands of violent misogynistic thugs, goes beyond incomprehensible. It represents a fundamental psychotic break from reality. Biting off one's nose to spite one's face does not even begin to describe it.

Women cannot be cruel to decent men and kind to evil men and expect that this has no consequences in the long run.

As the saying goes, "Be very careful what you wish for because someday, you may get it." This harkens back to how Western women routinely reward the "Bad Boys" with their attention whilst shunning "Nice Guys". Rewarding men who mistreat women only reinforces that misconduct.

Whenever women complain to me about how all men are such jerks, I tell them, "There would be such a huge supply of them if there weren't any demand."

Swedish lawmakers voted late on Wednesday in favour of a controversial bill allowing all emails and phone calls to be monitored in the name of national security.

You can bet the farm that such monitoring will NEVER result in preventing a single terrorist attack while arrests for "racial hatred" and "Islamophobia" will be rampant.

Ypp: When feminists equate all men with rapists, maybe they hint that they want to be raped? That explains why they invite foreign rapists.

Such a suggestion is highly repugnant. That said, radical feminism has become so morally and sexually inverted whereby such hatred for men literally assures that concensual heterosexual liasons can only be regarded as "sleeping with the enemy". This suddenly opens the door for rape being the sole way of obtaining heterosexual intercourse.

The level of psychological perversion and outright cognitive dissonance posed by this sort of self-negation, self-abasement and surrender to barbaric abuse is not just masochistic, it is suicidal.

You can bet the farm that such monitoring will NEVER result in preventing a single terrorist attack while arrests for "racial hatred" and "Islamophobia" will be rampant."

Well said, zenster. There's no doubt in my mind that's the real reason for this monitoring law. The Swedish Multiculturalist Reich has determined what people are supposed to think, do and say, and this will help them enforce this at every level. Truly, Sweden is becoming like the society depicted in Orwell's classic 1984. How soon until Thought Crime legislation is introduced in Sweden?

I'm really sick and tired of many so-called "feminists." They say all men are bad and evil, but I never see them condemning Muslim men who commit "honor killings". I never hear them condemn how oppressive Islam is to women. Seriously, how can anyone fail to see this disconnect? It frustrates me immensely.

the sad thing is that i actually have read that. maybe it was thelocal.se? they said that because of warmer weather women use less clothes and that invites men to... rape them, so that's why rapes have increased.

Because Natalie, it is not about the welfare women at all. Similarly, CO2 levels in the atmosphere are not what all the global warming hysteria is about either. These things are merely means to an ends. If it doesn't contribute to their very narrow and selfish ends, they couldn't care less. For example, Where's the uproar about Chinese greenhouse gas emmissions? The plight of women in Islamic world? Darfur? Burma? Human Rights Commissions, whatever... the list goes on and on and on...

It's not about actually solving these problems and making the world a better place at all. To these people, they are merely tools. It's about power and control. They'll use whatever they can to dupe people into going along with their agenda.

"The notion that sane women would place their blanket hatred of White Males before vociferous condemnation of rape, especially gang rape at the hands of violent misogynistic thugs, goes beyond incomprehensible. It represents a fundamental psychotic break from reality."

Bingo. The problem is that to them and their ilk objective reality doesnt exist anymore. It is just another male construct. It has become more important to them to discredit logic and reality then the brutalization of there fellow woman. In their sick and twisted view they are taking the longview in the war against western culture.

two points. first, feminism got a lot of energy from the irresponsibility of men in the 1950s. so, all of us are paying the price for all sorts of irresponsibility. second, i wonder about this: "They support anything that can destabilize the West."

Is it also that leftists just don't believe that Islam is to be taken seriously? Perhaps the idea is, "It's false consciousness -- this cannot last, this cannot be serious." That's what happened in Iran, when Ayatollah K received leftist support ... and then killed the supporters.

Those who do not perceive that religion counts -- do not perceive Islam correctly.

This harkens back to how Western women routinely reward the "Bad Boys" with their attention whilst shunning "Nice Guys". Rewarding men who mistreat women only reinforces that misconduct.

Ah yes, nice guys don't get laid. Also the name of a damn good book...very eye opening.

A concept I'm all too familiar with...both personally and observationally. I swear, if I hear the words, "You're just like my little brother," one more time, I'm going to...

Well, you get the idea. As if there was something inherently wrong with being like that for a girl. Being too sweet, too caring, too nice, too...GOOD; it's the kiss of death anymore. And we're not talking being grossly servile here, we're talking the very behaviors that are intimately linked to those that guarantee a stable and free society. I've got stories and stories.

As stated though, when a certain behavior is rewarded, and another punished, especially one like this which is tied inexorably to our very survival, the behavior that is rewarded will eventually become not just dominant, but commonplace. Given time, there won't be any more suckers, no more politeness...no more niceness. I almost can't wait to see it happen.

There's a flip side to this, but I'll let a girl talk about the other side of that coin. They would be far more adept than I.

You're very right, Chalons. It's all a means to an end. What frustrates me is all those idiots who don't think for themselves and just go along with it instead of realising how these people don't actually want to solve the problems they profess they do.

I do not expect the UN, itself, to take an active role in combating rape and sexual aggression in countries like Sweden but at least there is a public acknowledgement that it, rape, is a terrorist tactic.UN-Rape is Terror Tactic

David, maybe you have just been around the wrong type of women. A lot of women don't 'reward' 'bad boys' at all. A lot of us like, appreciate and respect the strong smart white gentleman 'type'. I agree there are too many strange women around a the moment (in fact, 'any' is 'too many' really) but please remember it is not all women. I guess if you've met a few then it must be annoying, it is like they don't even know what is best for themselves never mind anything else (like society, etc.), but David it is not all women. Please don't change or you will not be happy. If you, or any guys, have had too many bad expoeriences with these freaky women I would say just try to meet more women - we are not all freaks like that!

Fjordman, while I agree that Feminists do exactly as you describe, and the media pays a lot of attention to them, their influence as such is IMHO more a sign of deeper social changes than merely people being influenced by their ideas. Rather, people are pre-disposed to the feminist ideas in the first place by deepest social changes.

Several things stand out recently. Oprah had on yesterday polygamists and her show as one giant rally for how "normal" they are and how we as a society should NEVER discriminate. Her audience of course applauded. BBC America runs promos for a show featuring a woman who had a sex change operation to become a man, her girlfriend boasting "he's more a man than any other man" or something like that. As noted on NRO's "the Corner" Glamor Magazine has "rules for threesomes."

All in all, I think these above incidents are indicative of first the belief, widespread among both sexes, that Western Society is invulnerable and invincible, to any social change, second that all social change is towards "positive" i.e. more tolerance for any extreme behavior or marginal beliefs and behaviors no matter how toxic they are.

But moving deeper, I think the big issue is that in democracies, parliamentary or otherwise, women because of their larger demographic representation, hold the key to political power, and their interests will be represented.

I think women form the raw calculation that any decrease in feminine power of ostracism, social status, Queen Bee-ism (see: Oprah), "female rebellion" aka huge lifestyle shifts from the social norm, are a huge and massive threat to their power.

The desire to retain maximum social/political power against the perceived marginal increase in risk of rape is rational. Men will take steroids and HGH in sports for much higher risks.

[Rebellion to men means bucking the social hierarchy to do it "your way" against perceived wisdom, and build an empire. Al Davis of the Oakland Raiders of the NFL is a good example, even though his personal life is fairly bourgeois. For Women, it's living an extreme lifestyle even though you don't challenge the perceived notion on how to perform a task. The former head of NOW, who had both a husband and a wife, would be such an example even though her professional life was utterly conventional. This lies at the heart IMHO of the gender difference.]

Yes, women are being assaulted at a horrific pace in Sweden, but to do anything about it or even name it would overthrow the whole PC-Multiculturalism affair which gives women disproportionate social and political power. No more gender-equity programs, half of directors being women, special programs just for women, huge amounts of social power given to ostracism. Meanwhile the physical threat can be under-estimated, avoided as much as possible, etc.

I will post on Zenster's, Fjordman's, David's, and EnglishBlondie's observations which I think are separate in another post.

This harkens back to how Western women routinely reward the "Bad Boys" with their attention whilst shunning "Nice Guys". Rewarding men who mistreat women only reinforces that misconduct.

Ah yes, nice guys don't get laid. Also the name of a damn good book...very eye opening.

EnglishBlondie said...

David, maybe you have just been around the wrong type of women. A lot of women don't 'reward' 'bad boys' at all. A lot of us like, appreciate and respect the strong smart white gentleman 'type'.

These quotes one from a male and one from a female are a good example of the "bad boy" problem. It's sounds like they are talking about the same thing, but they aren't, not even remotely, her statement "strong smart white gentleman" isn't what he's talking about.

A good guy can do fine with the ladies, but a spineless push over can't. Women don't want a bad boy, they want the lone ranger. Bad boys contain some of those independent, strong, traits, and they hide the bad ones until the next morning. It's an easy mistake for women to make. You want to be a good guy and popular with the ladies, then man up, but don't lose your conscience, and morality in the process.

No, Wormwood, women most decidely DO want the bad boy. Desperately. Popular culture, pandering to women's desires, has this as the ideal.

Look at Sex and the City. Young girls watch it too, it runs (cleaned up a bit) on TBS and it's hugely popular among the tween and older set. Mr. Big is the ideal. So too are the variations of him on the other soap operas, night-time or daytime.

Women, up to perhaps their mid thirties or so, will endlessly pursue the bad boy. Dalrymple in "Life at the Bottom" shows this. How even educated and successful women copy the underclass in Britain. Birth rates there are btw 50% illegitimate. Even his nurses choose men who are thugs and bad boys, who beat them. Educated and professional women who earn good livings.

Women want, need, and desire bad boys because they perceive them as more masculine, higher testosterone, and more "dangerous." Without constraints they will choose them every time.

George on Seinfeld demonstrated the effect brilliantly with "Man hands" picture. As long as women assumed she was his ex-girlfriend, they felt he had the approval of a beautiful woman and were attracted to him. The recent research on the "dark triad" here at Newscientist.com confirms this.

This is why Western society, with it's prior to mass-consumerism mediating institutions that molded female (and male) choice, based on character and suitability, prevented much of the bad-boy choice. And why women in particular are in the forefront to destroy the remaining remnants of those mediating institutions.

Women care deeply about how many other women want a man, how socially at ease the man is, how important and powerful relative to other men he appears, and that is about it. I speak in general terms, of course, individuals may vary, but in the main this holds true.

A "dangerous" washed up ex-Motocross rider who hasn't slept in two days beats the nice, reliable accountant any day of the week and twice on Sundays for women, even if they were identical twins.

Women don't see the downside of choosing the bad boy. Dalrymple goes into this in detail as he discusses the choice of men with an abused patient. They overestimate their ability to control them, consistently, and underestimate the danger or cost. Which includes, after a lifetime of choosing bad boys, the men who were not bad boys becoming them also, or losing interest in women their own age range, or both.

Look at the Beauty Arms Race, with trillions of dollars globally spent on battling other women to be more beautiful with cosmetics, fashion, and plastic surgery, not to mention diets and exercise. All in the pursuit of the few, socially dominant bad boy men.

Western Society is as feminists point out, built on the control of female (and male, particularly bad boy male) sexuality. To foster a broad family formation, where each man has a reasonable shot at his own family, and not the Ghengis Khan model of one man fathering, well a full 13% of direct male descendants in Central Asia. Where would you rather live, in Ghenghis Khan's society or respectable, 1950's America?

Some very interesting posts in this thread, very thought-provoking. My take on this is that this is a result of multiple marxist attacks on all tiers of our society - religion (judo-christian), the family, law and order, education etc.) the aim of which is to destroy our society. White civilisation - in particular, the white male - is to blame for everything.

There is another angle to this concerning racial hatred. Here's a South African take on the rape of white women:

Curious that the reverse - white rape and gang rape of women from other races - is extremely rare.

Maybe the white male has reached a point where we have no other choice than to fight to survive? Or as the femmies are sewing the seeds of their own suffering, do we just let the get on with it?

Wormwood:

Excellent post. What most men don't get is that attraction isn't a choice. When guys are nice to girls it creates no attraction. When you say "man up" you're bang on but most guys think that by buying gifts, paying compliments and all the other "nice" things us guys do to impress girls, they create no attraction and gives all the wrong signals.

Nice guys then react by being bitter and start blaming girls for going with jerks or bad boys which absolves them of responsibility. Not all of us guys are "bad boys" it's just some guys know how to create attraction and some don't. But being a "nice guy" (unless you're rich or look like Brad Pitt) doesn't do it because it screams "boring".

Fighting leftists you should be able to use us from the ex-soviet camp of killing peace.

I would love to accuse them of the most abject imperialism and ask them for money for aging victims who live still in poverty since they never joined the socialist non-sense project. You claimed to be internationalists, so pay for the international disaster.

ALSO: The leftists were told by Stalin after 1938 not to oppose Hitler in Europe. They might be easily accused as enablers of the WWII. So it went on here, in Germany, in France. Nazi army entering Prague was termed by Stalin as "German WORKERS in uniforms". Later on, those enablers were celebrated as victors or victims and never critisized. From Stalins view point it did not really matter whether people died in the war or some Gulag. Officially we applaude the "heroic fight of the soviet people" which was unnecessary ïn the first place, since Stalin backed Hitlers project in many fields. It should be studied in detail. I am sure if we dig enough to find more revealing facts. Just bring them to the public attention, weaken the other side. Remember the archives get opened after decades, Czech researchers have troubles in Russia to get access to all they should be entitled right now. What abou other Western researchers? Keep checking for details.

So do not feel shy of telling it as it was. Same for Iran, the leftists enabled the islam "revolution" and then were accidently victims to their own idiocy.

Concentrate on the Polish history as well. Instead of supporting the fighting Poles and providing the weapons at least, Stalin grabbed what he could - half Poland and executed 14 000 Polish army officers. No one dares to say it was Germany AND Soviet Russia who started the war. Stabbing in the back does not count?

You find beautiful details - like handing out of German communists to the nazis - just a transfer from a soviet camp jail to the nazi one even much later.

If we can put our argument "YOU DO AS YOU DID BEFORE", we are much stronger.

True - not all leftists were communists. But they viewed the Soviet horror with sympathy or expectations. Enough to make them fully complicit just like our illusionary "moderate" muslims.

Not only are the leftist ideals totally silly, they are even ready to betray them anytime - as in the case of supporting theocratic sharia madmen in the West right now.

Never miss the chance to tell them, your ideals are silly plus you are right now betraying them 100%.That will weaken them double.

"It appears you stand for nothing, void, simply empty."

They think that every devil being weak now - down trodden so to say - must be automatically leftist and heavily supported. They are dedicated to help every devil around. They cannot imagine an emboldened devil xy will eat them. Their belief is strictly monodevilish, they fight and concentrate on One Big (imaginary) devil. One cannot get more blind.

Hi Wormwood,Of course I do not know for sure to what type of man David is referring, but 'bad boys' is not good in my book. What I was trying to say was the honourable men are the ones we like. Not the 'bad'.

Definitely not a troll, Fjordie, just a chap who's a bit more honest with himself and others about where all this is headed. I enjoy your essays, BTW. Keep writing. I'm sure you'll persuade the globalist power elites and Multi-Cult to hand over power to us, any day now.

Meanwhile, Norwegians are being told that we need to hire thousands of more cops to contain the massive increase in crime brought on by mass immigration (which is still supposed to be “good for the economy), a mass immigration that will not only continue but increase.

Fjordman, do you know of any recent hard data from local-language or English primary sources on rising crime in Scandinavia? The article you linked refers to increasing rates, but without data. IIRC you had some pretty good data on your old blog, but I wonder if those trends are continuing.

whiskey_199: No, Wormwood, women most decidely DO want the bad boy. Desperately. Popular culture, pandering to women's desires, has this as the ideal.

Anyone who desires proof of this need look no further than the old addage:

IF IT DOESN'T HURT, IT CAN'T BE LOVE

What was once a popular song's tag line has become a pervasive moral mantra. It is the source of so much poison that words cannot describe it.

Love is not supposed to be an excruciating and wrenching experience. The last few decades of Hollywood programmed women have bred up generations of drama queens who lust after a soap opera reality and talk show life.

A supreme downside to female empowerment—and this comes from a staunch advocate of gender equality—is the persistent notion that women have the power or need to "change" their partners. As in:

IF HE LOVES ME, HE'LL CHANGE FOR ME

Now, take your average decent guy, what few are left of them. What's there to change? NOTHING. Now look at your dangerous, wife-beating, loner, rebel. What's there to change? Everything! The only question is, where to start?

So, what's the problem? As I mentioned before, when women throw themselves at these macho meatheads, it only reinforces the perception that being a jerk is a winning strategy. Looking at the huge over-abundance of jerks, I'd certainly have to agree.

Fortunately, as EnglishBlondie noted, there are still some decent women out there. They are increasingly difficult to find because of how dangerous our streets have become from—guess what?—all those violent, abusive rectal cavities that women have been so busily rewarding for their badboy misbehavior.

It is a bloody and vicious itch-scratch cycle of negative feedback and improper reinforcement.

Sadly—as in the case of Sweden—it is going to require a whole lot more rape, wife beating and other physical abuse to knock these idiotic drama queen fantasies out of women's skulls. We decent men simply cannot persuade or convince women of what they abjectly refuse to believe.

Even sadder is how these post-abuse women are often very badly damaged goods. Embittered, hostile and often intensely anti-male they are lightyears away from being decent marriage material. That they literally begged for it is cold consolation for us poor guys who get sucked into relationships with these auto-traumatized idjits.

Don't think for one moment that these ill-treated women do not trigger all sorts of "rescue" and "hero" instincts in us comapssionate men. It usually takes more than a few rounds in the ring with such twisted mates before we learn our lesson and stop trying to help. And believe you me, there are few more disillusioning things than to be punished for responding to some of your finer instincts by having them thrown back in your face.

If older women ever wonder why some decent men pursue much younger women, you can bet the farm that more than a few of us are looking for a partner who has yet to be permanently warped and deformed by the poisonous messages that bombard females from all angles in modern society.

My own recommendation is to lay off the Cosmopolitan rags, stop buying into the anorexic Barbie body-model and quit being fashion slaves. Try to show a little appreciation when a nice guy holds the door open for you or lets you go ahead before him. Figure out how to be open and honest about your own sexual needs without expecting your partner to be a hybrid of stud and mind-reader. And for goodness' sake, LEARN HOW TO MAKE THE FIRST MOVE. Good guys will respect you for it and not treat you like a slut because you had the ovaries to ring them up or ask them out.

Lest anyone think that the foregoing has little to do with the situation in Sweden, please think otherwise. It is a direct result of much that I have just outlined. Women are sent exceptionally confusing messages by modern media and they themselves send out almost irrational signals in kind.

To close, there is no way on earth that hating men is ever going to find you a decent husband. GET OVER IT.

Women want, need, and desire bad boys because they perceive them as more masculine, higher testosterone, and more "dangerous." Without constraints they will choose them every time........

.....Women care deeply about how many other women want a man, how socially at ease the man is, how important and powerful relative to other men he appears, and that is about it. I speak in general terms, of course, individuals may vary, but in the main this holds true....

Whiskey look at the characteristics that you say attract women: dangerous, higher testosterone, socially at ease, important/ powerful compared to other men. What is bad, or evil about those traits? They however are contained by many badboys but they aren't exclusive to them. I propose that many "good guys" contain them as well but you don't see or hear about it because those good guys are off the market, quick, because they also have the ability to form a relationship.

I am not going to attempt to argue with you guys about the drop in womens standards, because I agree, but I do believe that a good man can do just fine, but he must be a man.

In my opinion, those who believe that women are just confused today about their mating choices and can eventually be brought to their senses, are fooling themselves. Our mating instincts are hard-wired into our brains, evolved over millions of years of living in the stone age. Women dig "bad guys", violent men aso. because, in stone age society, these had the best chances to survive and spread their genes, often by just taking women, lots of them, without asking about their consent first. And when it's not "bad guys", it's muslim or black men, look at where the main destinations for female sex tourists are: Turkey, North Africa, Kenya, the Caribbean. There is no point in blaming women for it, that's just how evolution made them. We need to understand that procreation can't be left to the free market. Women's sexual and reproductive behaviour was formed over thousands of years under illiberal conditions, how can we expect it to function in a liberal society?

@Nilk:

Thank you for pointing me to that book, it is indeed very enlightening.

@Zenster:

"A supreme downside to female empowerment—and this comes from a staunch advocate of gender equality..."

Are you sure you are on the right track advocating gender equality, when the sexes are, in fact, not equal but fundamentally different in nature? I would like to recommend Nilk's link to you, too, it makes quite a persuasive case for patriarchy and every major civilization that I know of, emerged under a patriarchal order. Only recently have we begun to believe in gender equality and our societies are already dissolving and our families are falling apart... I am not yet convinced that we need to copy everything one-by-one from the past, but I believe that women's mating must be restricted to socially acceptable choices, that families need to be protected from falling apart by the legal system and children need both father and mother as in order to become productive and responsible members of society as adults. And since a majority of women will probably continue insisting on gender equality as long as they find men willing to listen to them, those of us, who want to resurrect Western civilization, must just stop listening to their complaining. Women will put up with any social order anyway, as the absence of any uprising of women in the Islamic world proves. Actually, there is some evidence that women actually want men to take charge of their matters, as the vast majority of converts to Islam are women.

@Zenster & Whiskey_199There is one influence on women wanting the bad-boy that is overlooked: the Church. I noticed in the churches I attended over the years a non-biblical religious position that the woman is the moral center of the family. Once the woman absorbs this nonsense and sees this as a source of power, she is not going to choose the decent man who grew up in the church or who has been a Christian long enough to acquire sound doctrine; this would undermine her power and remove her from being the moral center. As result, she must seek out the bad-boy whom she can led to righteousness, control to an extent his religious education, and make him dependent on her. And this, by the way, increases the minister's social power as the wife, having headship over the husband, will give headship to the minister. In this was there has been a double usurpation of the husband's authority.

The West's comparitive advantage over other societies has been the better treatment of women, more freedom for them, compared to other societies.

Feminists often complain about the bad restrictions on women's lives through religion and the Church, but that paled in comparison to the harem and tribal awfulness of other societies. They also ignore the ability to form the average guy into a family, his own, and benefit from his own efforts to his family. China's Eunuchs never passed technology down the family line to be constantly improved. The West did.

This required women's sexuality to be controlled, somewhat, as were men's sexuality, through mediating institutions. So women did not choose the hyper-masculine bad boys and the few hyper-masculine men did not effectively monopolize most of the women. Reproduction was spread out over many people. Every man had a stake in society, as a man with a family not a slave or serf or eunuch.

Now men are outside, suddenly, or at least a good chunk. The posters who advocate "man up" are shouting into the wind. The fathers of these men never had to "man up" and it's unlikely they can change fundamental aspects of their personality. Moreover, demonstrating personal courage is not enough. There are few ways to do so, and even if it was shown, women largely now in the current generation don't care.

Look at female-skewing "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." "Nice guy" Xander risks his life to save her, and she responds by sleeping with the bad boy who left her to die. Women loved that storyline, because it's not about courage, rather large amounts of raw testosterone and social dominance. Since only a very few men can be socially dominant, this is a recipe for most men to be shut out of the relationship market, and constant violence as those shut out seek to throw out the "King." With women as a commodity like Gold instead of a life-long love match.

You can see this clearly in the Black Urban community where during Jim Crow, family life in the nuclear variety held sway and even under the threat of racist violence black men could walk without fear in their own neighborhoods. To today's style of selection shown in rap videos -- a complete lack of love on either side of the gender divide.

What is needed of course is mediating institutions to productively control and shape gender relations. It collapsed most clearly in the Black Community, with only the churches still intact (Blacks had separate benevolent societies, banks, insurance companies, etc). Rapid urbanization, alienation, mass-market loneliness only encourages this rampant choice without consequence mentality (which affects men badly too -- choosing for appearance rather than character).

The rest I really do not agree. I think you people beyonde the Alps don't really know how to educate women. And we here, have learnt with you.

It starts with the father-daughter relationship and the brother-sister relationship to end with the husband-wife.

Man has to somehow dominate.I don't mean restringe women, but when you say they have to make the first move...

I am not against, believe me! I prefer to be seduced instead of seducing (a real problem for a man) but I recognise that women do not have to make the first move.We, as a society, have to put limits on women (as well as on boys) and when we stop doing this, you know what happens...

Also, I don't believe those bad boys are really that bad.First of all, those who have been in the company of a alpha male will understand that he generally is not a bad person.Second, woman do not like bad boys. What they like in bad boys is those "genetic traits" bad boys had somehow inherited from the nobel knight or the nobel prince.

Have you noticed why women all over Europe fantasyze with Italians and why there is the steryotype of the strong but still cult and loving Italian?

Look at white women in Latin America is a good example also. For women to act good, they have to have limits.

And it is man's job (bad boy) to put a limit to a girl.

I think English Blondie and other girls would somehow agree with me...

Whiskey,"The posters who advocate "man up" are shouting into the wind. The fathers of these men never had to "man up" and it's unlikely they can change fundamental aspects of their personality."

Oh really!???

The white man is more feminine than bloody ever.

During my father's days on the market, there were no gay parades, PS or fat people at every corner.

Concerning my grandfather, he start working at 8 in mines and was a sheaperd to a whole village.Whenever a wolf appeared and a ship was missing he was beaten by the first adult villager taking notice of it. Guess what? Pratically all the boys in all the villages (excepting the elite) were shepars as well, they fought wolves with stones...

And you say our (mine) generation of gay parade / whites beaten by every ethnic minority / white woman being rape in trains or corners and people passing by looking the opposite direction / fashion slaves meterossexuals / fat / without responsabilities males is as "manly" as our ancestors...well, I am ashamed of my generation.We, as a whole, need to man up. And fast!

My position is this, if women will choose only the most socially dominant man in any setting, then most men will lose.

That is not the recipe for social health. It is a replication of the situation in most Muslim lands. It is a ticking social time bomb.

Because "there can be only one" to quote the Movie/Series Highlander, in any one setting. 6/21/2008 1:03 AM

Post a Comment

You're trying to simplify something that is complex. You state there can be only one within a social setting, but you fail to realize how many social settings there are. You are imagining that you need to be the POTUS to gain the interest of a woman, when in reality you could simply be the president of your stamp collecting club, and find a nice little postal worker, but lets say your right, then how exactly are you going to force women to do the "right" thing?

I think this a confusing topic for many people because humans, broadly speaking, function on at least three levels-- the biological/instinctual, the cultural/psychological and (for many if not most of us the) the spiritual.

Men are programmed on the biological level to want women who can have viable offspring--and this is true even when the man does not want to have children. The biological/instinctual programming is still there. Thus men are typically attracted to young, healthy-looking women. I am just speaking about the biological level for the moment. The biological/instinctual programming is modified by the culture, of course and also by psychological preferences (conscious and unconscious). What is considered to be attractive in one culture may be less attractive in another. (Of course, biological attraction is also a matter of chemistry and type--all the beauty and good will in the world may not create a strong attraction if the other person is not "your type.")

Women are programmed on the biological/instinctual level to seek men who can have healthy children and who can help insure the survival of children and family. For tens of thousands of years (perhaps much longer) we evolved in situations in which male strength was a highly desirable quality. Women today are still programmed to respond, instinctively, to male strength--however that is interpreted by the culture and by their individual psychologies.

In our culture, male strength can be displayed in a variety of ways, for example with power and money as well as by physical strength. For sophisticated and/or psychologically healthy women, male strength can also be displayed by means of intelligence, consideraton shown to the weaker, protectiveness, mastery of a field, trade or profession, etc, etc. The dream of the Knight in Shining Armor is cliche but there are psychological truths in cliches.

Here's one the problems: women who have been abused or are not too intelligent or who have not been raised with decent values or who have been heavily influenced by pernicious media and "entertainment" or who just crave excitement (there are excitement junkies among women as well as among men) may find themselves drawn to the "bad boys" who display some kind of raw strength. I consider this to be a distortion--at least for a 21st century, civilized human being. (Male sexual attraction can have its own distortions).

When women and men are not raised with decent family/psychological/cultural/spiritual values, cultural distortions (such as the male-hatred of radical feminism) can be a result.

These cultural and psychological distortions influence and distort instinctual/biological attraction. Some women need to be taught that they are programmed to respond to strength and need to be taught to be discriminating about what kinds of strength they want in men.

"What is considered to be attractive in one culture may be less attractive in another. (Of course, biological attraction is also a matter of chemistry and type--all the beauty and good will in the world may not create a strong attraction if the other person is not "your type.")"

Well just to finalise in beauty - well if Blogger let me to do so - I'd like to say that one thing is independent of the type, and is universaly actractive: The European woman. Sorry! The "white" "Western" women...

It is a hate/love relation between the rest of the world and Europe.There is a hate that emanates from the rest of the world towards the "white male", and, simultaneously, the European woman is precieved as highly desirable but as hatefull at the same time.

The non-Europeans (maybe the North East Asians are exceptions but... No they aren't... now I remember how they are said to behave in Australia...)...

The non-Europeans desire the European women and by mating with Her, Europe, and keeping one (or raping one!, though just momentaneously) to theirselves, they are doing essentially two things:

1st, and above all, they are eliminating the white man.By getting the only dispositive availabe to crate white males and making it produce anything but white males, they are literally conquering the World. And are also being able to kill what they hate the most.

2nd, by doing the mentioned above, they are also getting what they believe (and kind of is) is the proof God exists, they are taking the "most divine" creature God had created to their own. It's like the Romans and the Hyperborians... those Indo-European myths about a Northern Olympian place of perfection, like the Isle of Brazil or something...they are also taking the Arch of the Alliance, robbing the other group women, or taking her, is highly offensive if one precieve the other to be somehow superior (you know what happened when they took Helen in ancient Greece...) or simply a "other".

In Brazil, for instance, a white man when showing his love for a black women usually call her: my negro. Just how the Brazilian Television of the socialist Lula is now publicising the inverted relation with the black man calling my whitey to the white women...Inter ethnic relations have always this kind of "I took you from where you belong and now you're my property" mentality.

I just wanted to add that by taking the white women (or raping them) non-Europeans are not only symbolically (and quiet literally) killing the white man; They are killing also what the "white man made" and they really envy: white women. If you're not a Euro, by loving white women, you're killing her. This is the ultimate contradition.

You want an example: look to islam! First the Persians and Turks, today the Albanians, tomorrow the Bosniaks. The day that follows all Europe. You can also look to Latin America and soon the United States.

In my "racist bastard!!!" view, the most precious ressource of the West is the Western women. (And then, I even have the discernment to consider me not a racist!!!)

So, we really have to man up. And to be normal like the males of other societies instead of giving our daughters to foreign rapists and making gay parades everywhere we go.

But really, aren't there men that eternely persue the female equivalent of the Alpha male?Don't we all say: look how fat/ahly she is!!! Don't we?

What we lack as a sociey is good sense and normalcy. And to realise what every non-European does: That the greatesr ressource of the West is the "Western Women" and everybody wants a piece of that.

@AlfonsoAt some level, The white female must understand this; such knowledge cannot exclusively be known to the males. If so, then we can properly say that those white women who engage in such relations willingly also hate white males and are actively seeking his death.

I think that to force them to understand or realise all that plain and simple would be to corrupt their innocent minds.

As I've said it all starts with the Father who doesn't care or doesn't educate his daughter well. So, ultimateley its our fault (men's fault).

Basically we can not blame women for being "naive".

All this femininism started when fathers stopped "protecting" and raising their children right.

I would say to your last sentence that women "don't hate". They are made to hate bym lets call it this way:Occult forces.

It is not the Jews, neither the leftists, nor the feminists, this new Christianity or the aliens from Roosvelt; It is the devil (and you don't have to be religeous to realise that no Human group alone could do all this harm to European Civilisation, so lets call them it, devil) who's behinde all that and order some groups to act.

Women are fragile, when without support and orientation that is. They are naive, so the devil can get an advantage over girls more easily.

I don't know if you have noticed but when in discussions women are the ones who usually say: "stupid"; "that is wrong" "beacuse it is so"; "that's what the Nazis would do"; "we shall embrace all", etc. without presenting any argument.

Women usually don't vallue reason as much as men do.

For instance, I can recall a discussion I had with a (ex?) (proto-)femininist about multiculturalism in which her argument was always only one, doesn't matter how many times it got caduced. her argument was:

"Multiculturalism doesn't function because of racist white people, because those people lack "multicultural mentality" and "multicultural education", therefore we (the European Union) need more multicultural propaganda to educate people in order for multiculturalism to function".

P.S- this from a women who loves "ethnic minorities" but doesn't refraint from commenting "there are too many negros here" and "I really don't like the Chinese people, only their food" any time she goes to a Chinese restaurant or pass through some parts of the city...

This kind of thing and the generalisations usually made by women lead me to also think that women are much more hypocrites than we (damned! look how they treat each other!!!).

It is the devil (and you don't have to be religious to realize that no Human group alone could do all this harm to European Civilization, so lets call them it, devil) who's behind all that and order some groups to act.

I think you do have to be religious to perceive the demonic handiwork; to recognize that there is a grand delusion being created; to perceive that there is an intelligent, cunning, spiritual power acting across generations, building and enacting this delusion with increasing strength.

This power generated a murderous religion: religion with staying power that no man-made religion can have. From that, it went on to destroy one half of Christiandom or place it in dhimmitude. Next, it seduced the remaining half to incorporate pagan rituals and beliefs. When a revived Christianity arose based on the bible and faith, that same power made war on it and then corrupted it over several centuries: we are at point where the believer has to seriously weigh the possibility that attending a church may do him more harm than not.

Having so corrupted the Western Church, the demonic power is almost as an afterthought tearing down Western Civilization which is, in effect, a creation of Christianity. Christians will be neutralized, be driven from the public places, become dhimmis, or, at last, slaughtered.

Once this is done, the devil will be able to turn his full fury against its primary target: Israel and the Jews.

pasta: Are you sure you are on the right track advocating gender equality, when the sexes are, in fact, not equal but fundamentally different in nature?

I am speaking in legal terms. How is society better off by paying similarly educated women significantly less than men for doing the same exact job? How is society bettered by having police give a wink and a nod to rapists and wife-beaters while saying, “Boys will be boys”? I’ll ask that you consider how many Madame Curies and Amelia Earharts have been lost to fatherly misogynists telling aspiring women, “You don’t want to be the doctor, you want to be the nurse. You don’t want to be the executive, you want to be the secretary.” That sort of garbage has no place in modern society.

A vast amount of patriarchal tradition exists to reinforce unmerited male privilege. There is no better example of this than Islam, the poster-boy for patriarchal male chauvinism. I believe that we, in Western society, can do far better than a bunch of Koran-thumping Neanderthal cretins.

What I do challenge is the notion of female empowerment to the point where women feel compelled to change their mates simply because they can wield sufficient sexual blackmail to remold men according to their whim. This is that, “If he loves me, he’ll change for me” nonsense and it’s got to stop. Women need to get over themselves and begin seeking out men who are so stable, decent and honest that they don’t need any damn changing. Treating men like some psychic remodeling project is a sure path to disaster.

I am not yet convinced that we need to copy everything one-by-one from the past, but I believe that women's mating must be restricted to socially acceptable choices, that families need to be protected from falling apart by the legal system and children need both father and mother as in order to become productive and responsible members of society as adults.

Nowhere do I argue against this.

Women will put up with any social order anyway, as the absence of any uprising of women in the Islamic world proves.

How on effing earth does that remotely justify the policy of Abject Gender Apartheid that Islam imposes upon women? You’ve clearly overshot the boundaries of acceptable gender-based social mismatch.

>>Their revolutions didn’t happen, in the West at least. But this didn’t mean that they gave up their end goals, which have largely remained the same <<

I’ve only read this far and feel the need to comment:

This is very true. Economic Marxism has proved to be a failure and very unpopular where it has been enforced. Europeans have demonstrated at the ballot box that they are highly unlikely to ever want to live under dictatorship, and have for various reasons, rejected government control of their lives. This is very apparent in the United Kingdom where following the defeat of National Socialism, The Soviet Union with their brand of International Socialism considered the UK ripe for revolutionary transformation. But the British people were not ripe. Why this was is up for debate. It might be something as simple as the glimpses of Capitalism’s success that the post-war weary Britons had from the thousands of American GI’s with their dollars, gum, candies, nylons and imported cars; their tales of the wonderful lives they led back home, or the scenes of American success from their movies; but whatever it was the British did not want a Socialist revolution.

As you say, this rejection of a Socialist revolution did not mean that International Socialists gave up on their goals. I believe this is where the infiltration of Frankfurt School ideology and Gramscism has been very successful both in the UK and the US as well as other European countries. The foundations of our societies and culture have been undermined by the deliberate and systematic infiltration by the promoters of Int’l Socialism; they have achieved successful takeover of the media, education, the judiciary and government; even religious bodies have not escaped the snares of Leftwing ideology, think of the Liberation Theology of the 80s and the Swingin’ bishops of the 70’s. European history and culture has been labeled oppressive and evil by Leftwing academics, sociologists and the media, our history should be a source of unending shame, not pride; our religious and national traditions have been devalued at the expense of imported exotic and mystical cultures that are promoted as healthy, mind expanding alternatives. Conservatives, Capitalists and Christians are the bogeymen of the world. No need for me to go into the Counter Culture of drugs, promiscuity, porn etc. I think we’re all pretty much up to date on the elevating and enriching returns from these gems of Socialist ideology.

With this in mind it is little wonder that the Left has been so successful in attaining their goal of taking over the nations of Europe, even at the cost of importing a truly belligerent ideological block (Islam). Removing European hegemony and instilling a sense of utter shame and self-loathing into Europeans, has imho caused them to meekly accept the invasion of their lands by these hostile foreigners and sinister ideas. This, combined with the slanderous association of Rightwing Conservatism with ‘Rightwing’ Nazism, (the greatest lie in History?) there was little chance that anyone who valued their social standing would object. Association with Aldoph Hitler is the kiss of death, the Left knows this and they have spent the past half century concealing their association with him. I’ll read further later on and may have more to say!

I agree with a lot of the points above. The point I was trying to make originally is that not all white western women are 'freaks' in the way described. I agree there are many of that type of women around, but I was just trying to stress that it is not all of us. I also think that they are disproportionately over represented (and promoted) in the media and government.

Also, yes, 'strong' is good, but strong in a cetain way - and that does not mean 'bad' in my book.

Another reason that 'bad boys' get women is that they are more likely to approach you (not that we all want them when they do, I'm just saying that more approaches increases their chances over all). I know people say they are hot on the internet and they're not, but people do find me hot and I get approached a lot, and it is usually by 'bad boys' (I'm with a man who is not a 'bad boy' so I don't want any approaches/offers I'm just saying that that is how it happens)

"I am speaking in legal terms. How is society better off by paying similarly educated women significantly less than men for doing the same exact job? How is society bettered by having police give a wink and a nod to rapists and wife-beaters while saying, “Boys will be boys”? I’ll ask that you consider how many Madame Curies and Amelia Earharts have been lost to fatherly misogynists telling aspiring women, “You don’t want to be the doctor, you want to be the nurse. You don’t want to be the executive, you want to be the secretary.” That sort of garbage has no place in modern society."

It seems that, the better educated a woman is and the more she earns, the less likely she is to get married, stay married and have children. For example, in Germany 40% of all women with an academic degree remain childless throughout their lives. Amelia Earhart seems not to have had any children, either.

When one studies patriarchal tradition in depth, one finds that there is actually a lot of sense in it. You should really read the book at the link given by Nilk, it explains the reasoning behind patriarchal traditions in detail. But I agree that for a modern society, we should find our own social order instead of copying century-old traditions one-to-one.

"How on effing earth does that remotely justify the policy of Abject Gender Apartheid that Islam imposes upon women?"

I was not trying to justify it, merely point at the fact that men should not fear protest or lack of cooperation from females when they go about resurrecting a sustainable social order, whatever it will be like. Had the founders of ancient Rome feared female protest, they wouldn't have abducted the Sabine women and Rome wouldn't have survived. And since we know about the Gender Apartheid Islam imposes upon women, why don't we just protect our women by preventing them to marry muslims and converting to Islam by force, if necessary? Our ideology of female self-determination forbids this and makes us inferior against the Islamic order which doesn't have such qualms.

@Afonso:

I fail to see how your anecdotes about young shepherds throwing stones at wolves, your appeals on men to "somehow" "man up" or "somehow" "dominate" women or blaming their fathers for their misbehavior offers any constructive advice to us.

Pasta: It seems that, the better educated a woman is and the more she earns, the less likely she is to get married, stay married and have children. For example, in Germany 40% of all women with an academic degree remain childless throughout their lives. Amelia Earhart seems not to have had any children, either.

So, what's your alternative, "barefoot and pregnant"? It is far better to have a society that provides education and opportunity in equal measure for man and woman alike.

Yes, there are some serious consequences that we currently face with respect to this. While I certainly do not think that the West is immune from its dangerously low reproductive replacement rates, think of this: Those who are not having children will not be transmitting their failed lifestyle to any offspring. To an extent, the problem solves itself.

I was not trying to justify it, merely point at the fact that men should not fear protest or lack of cooperation from females when they go about resurrecting a sustainable social order, whatever it will be like.

What I find objectionable is your tone of "Stand aside little filly while we men go about rebuilding the modern world." Why on earth shouldn't men and women set about this task hand-in-hand?

It takes two to tango, much less have kids, and we'd best all unite in the task of resurrecting Western civilization.

And since we know about the Gender Apartheid Islam imposes upon women, why don't we just protect our women by preventing them to marry muslims and converting to Islam by force, if necessary?

That may well prove necessary, but not out of a wish to protect women from themselves but, instead, out of the need to crush Islam. On a cynical note, the currently deafening silence from the feminist left regarding misogynistic shari'a law certainly militates towards having to protect women from themselves. But that is grist for Ypp's new thread, "How We Can Get Our Culture Back".

"I know people say they are hot on the internet and they're not, but people do find me hot and I get approached a lot, and it is usually by 'bad boys' (I'm with a man who is not a 'bad boy' so I don't want any approaches/offers I'm just saying that that is how it happens)"

Can you please explain me why "hot women" usually like to scare males?

Weather hot or not, some 80% the times a hot women gets aproached she will not be receptive - well, not receptive, that would make them almost b***** but instead nice, educated, with simpathy.

What's the point on cutting the aproach in an almost rude way? In a "I don't care about you go away" way?

That only makes you less available, hot women by doing this became available only to men who like to play the game, to defy her...And they usually are bad boys. Why is this? Why cutting off so many pretendents just because they are not able to "play the game"?

I don't know where you from, maybe Italy, and I guess in Italy the same happens.

You mat be a real macho macho man, I really don't care. And society does not care either.

Here in my country it is evident that, at the social and general level, men have been more and more enfemininate and de-virilised each generation.

In such a way that our society today is so (sorry by the term) faggot and sissy that our grand fathers look like epic heros in comparison. Guess what? Our grandfathers weren't heros, we are the sub-male ones.Can't you get it?

Just look at Spain! In two generations Spain has ceased to be one of the most manly (and civilised) countries in Europe to become one of the most sissy and de-virilesed countries in the world.

This is not normal. Femininsm is not normal, it only happens when males give a place for it to happen, when males stop behavng as they/we should.

I would like to see one of the now female ministers of Spain ostentating the same idea during the Franco days...

Also, look at the women on both governments: The Italian and the Spaniard.

The Italian women are a prototype of what the modern women should be: beautifull, intelligent, competent, strong, dominant, with carachter and above all anti-femininist, that mean, feminine.

In Spain they are only radical femininsts. ´

If you can't see the analogy of evolving from "children wolf fighter's armed with stones" to "grown males in gay parades" I don't know what I can do for you.

We need to man up. As a society, that is. Femininsts have space when men are not accomplishing their tasks.

Also Zenster, I agree with you, but can't we get our different tasks recognised as such? And respected?I mean, why should the same amount of women work in civil construction than that of men?

"So, what's your alternative, "barefoot and pregnant"? It is far better to have a society that provides education and opportunity in equal measure for man and woman alike."

What is your argument for this claim? Men and women are different and have different roles to live, why must everything be equal for them? You shouldn't dismiss the patriarchal social order so easily as Western civilization was strongest under it.

For society to survive, people need to get enough children and raise and educate them properly, that is, in stable families. So men and women must play their roles, women must give birth to children and be a mother to them, there is just no alternative. A society can survive only a few childless Amelia Earharts - and even this only if there are other women who make up for her by having even more children - but the norm must remain the stable family with a father, children and with the woman living up to her role as a mother to her children. If it is ensured upfront that the woman lives up to her role, then I am happy if she receives higher education and pursues a career on top of it, if she can manage it. A society in which women choose career over children, don't marry or get divorced on a whim, and if they do get a child, parent it alone, dispose of it in a (for society) hideously expensive kindergarten where they develop psychic problems, can't survive in the long run.

"While I certainly do not think that the West is immune from its dangerously low reproductive replacement rates, think of this: Those who are not having children will not be transmitting their failed lifestyle to any offspring. To an extent, the problem solves itself."

No, it doesn't solve by itself. For people to have stable families with children, whom they raise into productive members of society, there needs to be a legal framework which upholds a social order which makes it possible and desirable in the first place. Under the conditions of today, nobody's life is safe from failing in the way you mention.

"It takes two to tango, much less have kids, and we'd best all unite in the task of resurrecting Western civilization."

I am happy for every woman to join our cause, but I don't see many of them doing it. And I can understand them to some degree, as they enjoy total freedom and many privileges under the ultra-liberal system of today, which, alas, is not sustainable. Under a sustainable social order women would be predisposed to live their lives as married mothers and hence enjoy only limited freedom and opportunities besides that task.

You still haven't explained just how males should behave, you just keep lambasting and insulting them for "somehow" not being successful with the women, but you don't bother to explain what exactly and how (and not "somehow") they should go about it instead. That makes your criticism quite worthless.

"The Italian women are a prototype of what the modern women should be: beautifull, intelligent, competent, strong, dominant, with carachter and above all anti-femininist, that mean, feminine."

Even for European standards, Italy has an extraordinarily low fertility rate and many Italian men import their wives from Romania now.

"We need to man up. As a society, that is."

Do tell us just how exactly - as a society - we should "man up". And will you also admit that, given that society as a whole must tackle the problem, there is not much that a man can do about it as an individual?

"Femininsts have space when men are not accomplishing their tasks."

Have you ever considered that, under the current social order, men might not even be motivated to "accomplish their tasks" in the first place? Why should man marry a woman and found a family, if she can dispose of him at her whim, keep the children but have him pay for it? And even if he wanted to, how exactly should he do it, if many women don't want him because - according to you - they had fathers who failed to educate their daughters properly? I don't see you dealing with these questions, but just taking refuge into praising your grandfather's generation and blasting the current generation of men.

"It seems that, the better educated a woman is and the more she earns, the less likely she is to get married, stay married and have children. For example, in Germany 40% of all women with an academic degree remain childless throughout their lives."

In the above statement you seem to blame higher education for low birth rates or childlessness. That is the basis of my “barefoot and pregnant” comment. It represents the traditional chauvinistic attitude towards edumahcated and uppity wimmen. A bit of which seems to leak out from the edges of your comments.

Men and women are different and have different roles to live, why must everything be equal for them?

What part of:

I am speaking in legal terms. How is society better off by paying similarly educated women significantly less than men for doing the same exact job? How is society bettered by having police give a wink and a nod to rapists and wife-beaters while saying, “Boys will be boys”?

… did you not understand?

I also made a genuine attempt to address your own meaning by mentioning, “the boundaries of acceptable gender-based social mismatch.”

I do not say that “everything” must be equal for men and women. I specifically cited how genders must be equal under the eyes of the law. There are physiological differences between men and women that simply defy any legalistic leveling. Nowhere do I argue against that.

For society to survive, people need to get enough children and raise and educate them properly, that is, in stable families. So men and women must play their roles, women must give birth to children and be a mother to them, there is just no alternative.

Again, nowhere do I argue against this. Even though there might be other functional alternatives to the traditional family structure, I have yet to see them vindicated as anything remotely approaching the essential goodness represented by a nuclear family.

If it is ensured upfront that the woman lives up to her role, then I am happy if she receives higher education and pursues a career on top of it, if she can manage it.

Do tell how it is that anyone can set things up so it is “ensured upfront” that—subsequent to higher education—they will settle down and begin making babies? An individual might go on to make discoveries which more than compensate for any lack of contribution to the population index. Your model is not functional.

A society in which women choose career over children, don't marry or get divorced on a whim, and if they do get a child, parent it alone, dispose of it in a (for society) hideously expensive kindergarten where they develop psychic problems, can't survive in the long run.

Once more, nowhere do I argue against this.

No, it doesn't solve by itself. For people to have stable families with children, whom they raise into productive members of society, there needs to be a legal framework which upholds a social order which makes it possible and desirable in the first place. Under the conditions of today, nobody's life is safe from failing in the way you mention.

You tread dangerously close to state regulation of lifestyle. While I support better tax breaks for married couples and—especially—families, in no way can I tolerate any legislation of “morality”. That is a slippery slope from which there is little chance of recovery.

I am happy for every woman to join our cause, but I don't see many of them doing it. And I can understand them to some degree, as they enjoy total freedom and many privileges under the ultra-liberal system of today, which, alas, is not sustainable.

Here, you close in on the true dilemma. How is it that women can—supposedly—rationally embrace their newfound freedoms to such an extent that they represent an unsustainable lifestyle? The dichotomy of women being such manhaters even as they yearn to settle down in marital bliss is symptomatic of a truly nasty moral and philosophical malaise. As I have previously noted, this malaise lies somewhere between profound cognitive dissonance and a complete psychotic break.

Furthermore, there may not be a whole lot that men can do about it, save for seeking out partners—no matter how far flung—who wish to pursue creation of nuclear families while these dissipated Western women run down their biological clocks.

Under a sustainable social order women would be predisposed to live their lives as married mothers and hence enjoy only limited freedom and opportunities besides that task.

You’ll need to qualify that statement a whole lot better before I can even begin to agree with it. Once again, it reeks of chauvanistic patriarchalism.

"I do not say that “everything” must be equal for men and women. I specifically cited how genders must be equal under the eyes of the law."

Sorry for misrepresenting you. It just seems to me that, once you acknowledge the fact that men and women are different, the point for equality under the eyes of the law is moot, as the same law will yield different results for the sexes. That's why feminists pushed through affirmative action, because equality under the eyes of the law didn't produce the desired results.

But equality before the eyes of the law is unfeasible, too. For that, we would have to draft women into military service and in case of war risk their lives in combat in the same way as men. And lots of women killed or crippled in war would obviously have disastrous demographical consequences. Women are needed as birth-givers of children and that must be reflected by the legal system.

If we do accept that men and women are not equal, why do we need to treat them equally under the eyes of the law? If we accept their fundamental difference, wouldn't it make more sense to let the law account for their specific capabilities and needs?

"Do tell how it is that anyone can set things up so it is “ensured upfront” that—subsequent to higher education—they will settle down and begin making babies? An individual might go on to make discoveries which more than compensate for any lack of contribution to the population index. Your model is not functional."

It's the social order of today which isn't functional. No discovery, no matter how revolutionary, can make up for failure to offspring. Other women can have more children and that way make up for a few childless female scientists, but for that to happen, the social order must be set up in a way which makes these other women decide having enough babies in the first place.

My idea is to introduce a severe (because a light one won't have enough of an effect) penalty tax for those who violate their reproductive duties. If only a few people divert from the norm, society can cope with it, but it must be ensured that it doesn't become a trend. Both men and women must know that by neglecting their reproductive duties life will be much harder for them. With no doubt that will deter many women from choosing a scientific career but this is a price we have to pay. Of course, I am open to other ideas, too, provided that they work, but I haven't seen anybody proposing any yet.

"You tread dangerously close to state regulation of lifestyle. While I support better tax breaks for married couples and—especially—families, in no way can I tolerate any legislation of “morality”. That is a slippery slope from which there is little chance of recovery."

I am not sure what you refer to by "legislation of morality" here. But if you mean by it the patriarchal social order, which Western civilization had for the longest time, then I would argue that it was a great success as it made our societies creative and powerful and at the same time allowed their people to enjoy more freedom and greater wealth than any other societies that ever existed. What I have in mind, apart from the above-mentioned penalty tax for failing to meet one's reproductive duties, is, to ensure that every child will be raised by both mother and father, as there is evidence indicating that children being raised by single-parenting mothers have more problems and are less productive in their later life.

"Furthermore, there may not be a whole lot that men can do about it, save for seeking out partners—no matter how far flung—who wish to pursue creation of nuclear families while these dissipated Western women run down their biological clocks."

These days many men are not motivated to marry and have children in the first place, because the legal system is set up in a way which makes it possible for his wife to divorce him unilaterally, get the children and have him pay alimonies to her. Furthermore, the third world will not forever continue raising willing brides for us. If current trends continue, in the long run there will be only muslim brides left, and their families won't let us marry them unless we convert to Islam.

But we do want to survive, don't we? For my part, I openly admit that I am willing to disregard the stated will of women, when and wherever necessary for the survival of our civilization. Civilization was founded by men setting up a patriarchal social order and making women abide by it without seeking their consent, and it may very well be that this is the only way it can survive, too.

I'm actually with pasta on this one. My natural inclination lies with Zenster -- in resisting limits to liberty and in favor of totally equal rights for men and women.

But we are rapidly approaching the dystopian endgame for that philosophy. If, in fact, it has led to the dissolution of the very civilization that produced it, then it must be modified.

If absolute liberty and absolute equality cannot be sustained, then we must look for the most humane alternatives, because the supplanters of Western civilization will surely enforce something far worse.

Zenster, we have to ruthlessly re-examine all our cultural components to try to identify which ones have led us down the path to doom.

Well, it may be that nobody reads this tread anymore but I have to answer Pasta. By the way I think all this is very interesting but I almost can not comment it, you do it much better than I do.And for what I have read, I agree mostly with Pasta, though I am much more radical and I have an inability to blame women for the wrongs of society. If women screw up, it can only be because man have let them do so.Sorry the machism...

"You still haven't explained just how males should behave, you just keep lambasting and insulting them for "somehow" not being successful with the women, but you don't bother to explain what exactly and how (and not "somehow") they should go about it instead. That makes your criticism quite worthless."

I agree completeley with you and I have to say I can hardly exemplify what man shall do.I will only say this. We have to be more protective, we have to controle our daughters, sisters and wifes.

We can not give them illimited liberty, especially when considering teenage daughters.

A family can not behave as if the man had a life of his own and it was completeley separated from his daughters life.

The daughter's life have also to be as important - if not more - to her father as his own life.

I say daughters because I think it is the most flagrant example.

"Even for European standards, Italy has an extraordinarily low fertility rate"

Pasta, I was refering to the women on your government...especially the one (I think has the past) of Equality of Oportunity...

"Do tell us just how exactly - as a society - we should "man up"."

Taking controle of our families (daughters, once more) again.

"there is not much that a man can do about it as an individual?"

Well, if you are looking for a girl to mate, I agree.If you have aleady a family of your own, you may exercise some "preasures". In the end, and basically, what we can do individually is to domesticate the beasts in our women.I know, to have a long lasting relation is hard, but I also think what I mentioned above is part of a successfull long lasting relationship.

"under the current social order, men might not even be motivated to "accomplish their tasks" in the first place?"

Exactley. That's why I've been stated we have to do it. It's our obligation. It doesn't matter how easy or hard it is.

"I don't see you dealing with these questions, but just taking refuge into praising your grandfather's generation and blasting the current generation of men."

I really can not say you are wrong. It is evidently the opposite.

I would suggest man to do the same as women. I'd suggest man to praise the "patriarchy" and to behave like animals towards femininists.

Ex: The next time I see a femininist, I will grab her ass...

But you're right. I have no solutions. I can only speak of "education" and "protection" and those are pretty vague words...

It's been said that every civilization has within it the seeds of its own destruction. It is only when grand civilizations of the past have been weakened from within that they are susceptible to barbarian onslaught from without.

It would appear that Western civilization has passed its ascendancy and is on the downslope. What has weakened us from within?

I agree with the discussion above which raises the probability that it is feminism, but a very specific corrosive form, leftist feminism. This brand calls itself progressive but is about as progressive as a wrecking ball when nothing of equal or better value arises from the wreckage.

Probably no one is reading this thread any longer, but I think the topic well worth pursuing.

Betty Friedan, who got the ball rolling committed a massive fraud, like someone shouting fire, and managing to stampede the herd. SHE would have been unhappy as a typical housewife (she never actually even fit the picture)and decided to write about it as though it were true for the majority of women sans even the most rudimentary evidence. Anecdotes are not evidence. As for batting about statistics on depression etc., these have only gone up since the illusory emancipation of women. She basically wrote a fiction book like Stepford Wives but called it non-fiction.

Like the Soviets who boasted that their women drove tractors, the North American left took Friedan's ball and ran it down the field. By the time the media was finished, a case of mass hysteria similar to the preceding belief that Martians were invading resulted in polls showing that women really were unhappy with their limited lot in life and wanted "careers".

This hysteria was driven by women in the privileged classes but as is often the case, what works for them does not work well for the lower classes. Most women just ended up with a "job" that drained them so much they didn't have the energy to face a second job at home having and raising children.

Because duh, a woman welder actually added nothing to society but detracted from it in the following way: she took a job a man could do from a man who now did not have the income to support a family. She often did not do a job the man could not do, which was having children. Net result for society...a loss. Fewer or no children from the working woman and a family with a jobless man and lower standard of living or even worse a manless family.

It is a fact that the unwillingness to do the job only women can do is even more prevalent the higher the education. The gains did not offset the losses. After all, how many Madam Curies are there? or Thomas Edisons for that matter? Doubling a very small number of savants does not have a very big impact on raising standard of living in a society overall certainly not enough to offset a plunging birth rate.

The leftists had many other tricks up their sleeves, all inter-related, all with the end goal of breaking down capitalist society to build a soviet utopia in its place: sexual licentiousness, requiring abortion to keep women work-ready, enlarging government with a creeping totalitarianism disguised as do-gooding nanny, raising taxes to the point that families needed a second income to pay them, substituting atheism and statism for Christianity, promoting massive immigration by failed cultures while denigrating the host culture, making marriage meaningless with common-law marriage, frivolous divorce and gay marriage with polygamy on its heels , babying criminals while charging law-abiding citizens with trumped up crimes such as "hate speech"etc.

And for all this conglomeration, women were more likely to fall for it and vote for it, applying their more emotional and nurturing tendency that is valuable in a home raising a family to the most inappropriate of contexts, making their schools, courts, jails, governments and eventually international causes their "children".

Men were silenced by cries of chauvinist which was second only to racist in shutting down discussion. They have now been socialized in completely feminized elementary schools into automatons paying lip service to the feminist world view with some acting out their frustration in anti-social ways and receiving Ritalin to lobotomize them. Scandinavian men who are basically furthest along in this project to turn them into women are basically eunuchs while Muslim immigrant rape of Scandinavian women is skyrocketing.

Yes, women can technically do everything men did but they do much of it badly, meaning as a group they "think" emotionally rather than rationally, even when it comes to decisions affecting survival of their society and their countries. They are more often governed by feelings rather than facts.

I would say on balance, men, children, society and western civilization have all suffered in order to give women limitless choice. Surprise! Despite their desire to nanny and improve the world, women are making the selfish choice of doing what's best for themselves, and "apres moi, le deluge" because the society they've demanded and voted for is unsustainable. Look at Japan, trying to substitute robots for the children they didn't bother having.

A society and culture that does not have children and their welfare at its heart but sacrifices their best scenario (nuclear family with both mother and father and nurturing not squeezed out by work to pay taxes to buy state help) to the selfish interests of adults is dying. Barbarians at the gates and through the gates just hasten the process.

People should inform the people of Sweden and any others under the threat of violence or who have suffered from crime and criminal thugs, that there is a solution other than joining a political party, opposing their current government, or trying to acquire weapons and arms that the government would then jail you if you had used them to defend your life with.

It may not suit everyone, it may not be for everyone, and it requires English to use, but it is of more immediate benefit than any other solution.